Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
SANDEEP V. MARNE, J
Prabhat Kumar Singh – Appellant
Versus
Accu Pack Engineering Pvt. Ltd. – Respondent
Judgment:
1) The issue involved in the present Petitions is whether Petitioners, who have pocketed commission by floating fictitious firm in the names of their wives while procuring spare parts at exorbitant rates, are entitled to gratuity after termination of their services?
2) Petitioners have filed these Petitions challenging the judgments and orders dated 24 March 2023 passed by the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act and In-charge Member, Industrial Court, Thane, allowing the appeals preferred by Respondent-employer and setting aside orders dated 18 April 2022 passed by the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act and Judge, First Labour Court, Thane. The Controlling Authority had allowed applications preferred by the Petitioners and had held that they are entitled to gratuity from the Respondent-employer together with interest @10% per annum from the dates of their resignations. The Appellate Authority has held that Petitioners are not entitled to gratuity and accordingly Petitioners have filed the present Petitions challenging the orders passed by the Appellate Authority.
3) Briefly stated, facts of the case are that Respondent is engaged in the
Gratuity can be forfeited under Section 4(6)(a) of the Payment of Gratuity Act if an employee's actions cause financial loss to the employer, even without a criminal conviction.
Forfeiture of gratuity can only occur upon conviction by a court of competent jurisdiction for an offence involving moral turpitude, as established in Union Bank of India v. C. G. Ajay Babu and Other....
Forfeiture of gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 cannot apply to acts occurring after employment cessation, and necessitates prior notice to the employee.
Forfeiture of gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act requires a conviction for moral turpitude; absence of such conviction renders forfeiture unjustified.
Forfeiture of gratuity for misconduct involving moral turpitude is permissible without a criminal conviction, emphasizing the discretion of the appointing authority in determining the extent of forfe....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the provisions of sub-section (6) of Section 4 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 do not permit inclusion of circumstances relating to the i....
The entitlement to gratuity for an employee terminated due to alleged fraud must be assessed by the Labour Tribunal, not merely by the Labour Commissioner, underscoring the necessity of due process i....
Gratuity is a right for employees based on faithful service, and inquiries must be conducted by Labour Tribunals for forfeiture claims due to misconduct.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
